Games Are Over - Time to Focus on Romney

[RonPaul101.com]

I think the campaign would be wasting money if they continue with the Gingrich ads at this point. We have not paid enough attention to the guy who got 30,000 votes in 2008. Can we even get 30,000 votes in 2012? I hope so, but I'm worried that we are focusing on a simple diversion in Newt Gingrich.

Just think about it, if Gingrich wins Iowa and we come in second, we're a little let down after all the hype, but we're still good, still an anti-Romney choice for finishing ahead of Romney. However, if Romney wins Iowa, he'll lock up NH and it may be over before it gets started.

We need to hit Romney for his (once and maybe still, you can;t tell with Romney) pro-Abortion stance. That will cause a conservative uprising against Romney, as it very well should.

[RonPaulCult]

Are Romney supporters likely to switch to Ron Paul though? Shouldn't we just work on the supporters of all the other candidates, including soft Gingrich supporters?

I could see going after Romney after Iowa, but not before.

[opinionatedfool]

I want perry to place second. Romney has to be taken out of the running. Newt wouldn't be as bad in second because he is easier to beat IMHO.

[braane]

The campaign shouldn't go on the offensive anymore, imo.

They should get an awesome, positive, ad outlining why Ron is the best candidate and play it until the caucus. The media will start painting us as a negative campaign (signs of this have already started) if they keep producing negative ads. The goal should be to not give the media any ammo from here on in.

[vita3]

It's a long race. chill out a little on the attacks. especially during Christimas time.

peace

we got this.

[trey4sports]

the campaign knows what they are doing. They have a lot of polling data that we dont, so if they think attacking Newt is still the best way to go, I can get behind it.

[ross11988]

I want perry to place second. Romney has to be taken out of the running. Newt wouldn't be as bad in second because he is easier to beat IMHO.

I don't. Perry obviously has some wealthy supporters. I rather face one wealthy candidate (Mitt) vs two.

[dbill27]

maybe attack romney after iowa, we'll probably have to new hampshire

[RonPaul101.com]

the campaign knows what they are doing. They have a lot of polling data that we dont, so if they think attacking Newt is still the best way to go, I can get behind it.

Did they know what they were doing in 2008 too? If so, I'd get a second opinion; to use the doctor's vernacular.

If Newt took votes from Romney, its logical to think Romney will gain from our ruining Newt.

Maybe I'm a bit anxious, but Romney can't win Iowa. What ever direction we go towards preventing that is in our best interest.

[mwkaufman]

Positive ads are the way to go at this point. Paul's campaign has shoved its way to the lead, now it's time to tell everyone why they're here.

[ronpaulyourmom]

It's time to go positive overall; not go negative on Romney.

1) It's the holidays, don't go negative during the holidays.
2) Everyone knows Romney's dirty laundry, you're not telling them something they don't already know.
3) Romney already has already been labeled the flip-flopper, etc.. If you attack him it only provides an opportunity for him to respond to the charge and let the public hear it. He's so practiced on doing this that whatever he ends up deflecting with will be quite good.


Now if we truly get down to a two man race heading into Super Tuesday, maybe we'll have to go negative then, but in my opinion to do so now would be squandering precious resources to gain practically nothing.

[kill the banks]

if we attack mitt in NH then attack obama as well ... ie they're both alike and show them we are the One that can win against both !

[trey4sports]

Did they know what they were doing in 2008 too? If so, I'd get a second opinion; to use the doctor's vernacular.

If Newt took votes from Romney, its logical to think Romney will gain from our ruining Newt.

Maybe I'm a bit anxious, but Romney can't win Iowa. What ever direction we go towards preventing that is in our best interest.

for one, john tate wasn't running the campaign in '08 and two, Ron had no intention of winning in '08.

Lastly, the campaign has done a superb job thus far and Tate's record as well as his performance this cycle has been superb.

With all due respect.... you (and I for that matter) are an armchair quarterback. How many campaigns have you ran? Tate and crew do this for a living, and they have a lot of information we don't.

[Maximus]

Now is time to seal the deal by going positive. Even Romney people know he is a flip flopper.

[InTradePro]

In NH Huntsman is the issue. Don't under estimate him, he has money, backing and after being there constantly a good ground game. If Gingrich falls, it seems like Huntsman will be pushed in NH.

[InTradePro]

Going forward being second in NH will be more important then winning Iowa. Got to beat Huntsman

[braane]

The game has changed. The reason I say this is... on Thursday Tantaros pushed the crap out of Newt Gingrich. By Friday she was saying "maybe it's time to fall in behind Romney". Romney wasn't that spectacular on Thursday, I can barely remember a single response of his. Maybe this is that moment where the establishment has said "Ok...all else has failed, get in line".

[InTradePro]

The game has changed. The reason I say this is... on Thursday Tantaros pushed the crap out of Newt Gingrich. By Friday she was saying "maybe it's time to fall in behind Romney". Romney wasn't that spectacular on Thursday, I can barely remember a single response of his. Maybe this is that moment where the establishment has said "Ok...all else has failed, get in line".

No chance. The purpose is to push Romney for Iowa (so Dr Paul doesn't win) and then push Huntsman in NH to get second. Then they can right off Paul and go with Romney Vs Huntsman.

[braane]

No chance. The purpose is to push Romney for Iowa (so Dr Paul doesn't win) and then push Huntsman in NH to get second. Then they can right off Paul and go with Romney Vs Huntsman.

I'm not buying it.

I see some Huntsman pumping going on, but honestly... he would really struggle with conservatives. He has the same problems as Romney, and he is seen as the unelectable of the two. If the base wanted to drown Romney's chances (which they need their inevitable candidate to stay, so they wouldn't) they would push Huntsman. Since Romney would keep his base support it would just dilute the vote further. Probably giving New Hampshire to Ron. It would backfire, they have to know this.

[fatjohn]

No attack ads in the final weeks. Unless it's a gentle stab here or there and if its against obama. Point out Ron's electability with polls. Quote vs obama polls in ads. Start with the about electability: do you have any segment from 07 and then slam it into the ground with poll numbers of the general.

[dante]

The plan is to outlast the others and then turn the race into a Romney vs. Paul affair. No reason to start bashing Romney yet.

[RileyE104]

When Iowa is over THEN start going after Romney.

The entire point is to deny Gingrich a good standing in Iowa because we already know he's going to do terrible in New Hampshire.

Our competition in Iowa is Gingrich. Our competition in New Hampshire is Romney.


Then, when NH is over, I think it would be wise to go all out and attack both Gingrich and Romney and possibly even a small barrage against Perry if he's still in the race.

[DRV45N05]

The thing is, if Newt tanks in Iowa and it becomes Paul v. Romney there, then it creates an opening for Romney to go all-out in Iowa and score the early knockout blow, basically locking up the nomination.

[braane]

The plan is to outlast the others and then turn the race into a Romney vs. Paul affair. No reason to start bashing Romney yet.

Yep. A pretty good scenario would be...

Iowa -- Ron Paul (Santorum and Bachmann drop out after)
New Hampshire -- Ron Paul (Huntsman drops out after)
South Carolina -- Mitt Romney (Perry drops out and Gingrich suspends(or drops) do to lack of funds)

The best hope would be that Gingrich is forced to drop out after losing to Romney in South Carolina. Leaving only Mitt and Ron. I don't know how that would play out... but it's our best opportunity. I could also see Perry staying in for Florida... to try and get the anti Romney vote, but the last I heard he was pretty broke.

[FordGTGuy]

The campaign shouldn't go on the offensive anymore, imo.



Like Patton said, you should always be on the offensive.

Don't fool yourselves we have a long way to go and a uphill battle to get there and stopping for any reason is a mistake.

[clint4liberty]

I say again we are focusing on NH as we are other early voting states. Also, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone. The grassroots should have sent more super brochures to NH, but a Iowa win will boost Congressman Paul's chances in New Hampshire. When Iowa Caucus voters have made their decision to campaign and grassroots main focus will be on New Hampshire etc.,

[braane]

Like Patton said, you should always be on the offensive.

Don't fool yourselves we have a long way to go and a uphill battle to get there and stopping for any reason is a mistake.

I don't think that going negative will hurt the campaign. That doesn't make me right, though. I am too hard of a supporter to know. I look at the negative ads and lol about the candidate being attacked. Others might not. Ron probably does have some soft support. We need to maintain that support. The media will call us out on negative campaigning at every chance. It was brought up in the debate. It had been brought up in interviews. It's not going to help win people over. It's too late in the game, they(the voters) know the candidates flaws by now. The campaign needs a positive ad that shows why he isn't flawed (and the people can contrast on their own). That would keep the media off Ron's back. The campaign rose by being under the radar, heading into the election it's what I figured would be ideal. Which may not be the case (given Ron's comments on Leno).

[FordGTGuy]

I don't think that going negative will hurt the campaign. That doesn't make me right, though. I am too hard of a supporter to know. I look at the negative ads and lol about the candidate being attacked. Others might not. Ron probably does have some soft support. We need to maintain that support. The media will call us out on negative campaigning at every chance. It was brought up in the debate. It had been brought up in interviews. It's not going to help win people over. It's too late in the game, they(the voters) know the candidates flaws by now. The campaign needs a positive ad that shows why he isn't flawed (and the people can contrast on their own). That would keep the media off Ron's back. The campaign rose by being under the radar, heading into the election it's what I figured would be ideal. Which may not be the case (given Ron's comments on Leno).

"Negative Campaigning" is a harsh way to put it, it makes it sound like it's not helpful and that it's not the truth. I didn't say they shouldn't run ads without talking about other candidates but they should continue to contrast him and the other candidates in other ads. You can't pretend other candidates don't exist, because they do and that will only hurt you.

[Original_Intent]

The campaign shouldn't go on the offensive anymore, imo.

They should get an awesome, positive, ad outlining why Ron is the best candidate and play it until the caucus. The media will start painting us as a negative campaign (signs of this have already started) if they keep producing negative ads. The goal should be to not give the media any ammo from here on in.

This one hundred percent. The negative ads were to point out things that the media was not about some of the fornt runners. Paul now has people's attention and we need to build on that.

[Fredom101]

One thing to keep in mind is that this will be a battle all the way to the end. If Paul wins Iowa, it will be rendered meaningless in the media. If he takes 2nd, he doesn't exist. NH will be another battle. The attacks will come on fast and furious in the coming weeks. RP has to do everything he can to win states. It's not just going to magically work out, if attack ads work well then he needs to keep doing them. Yes, go after Romney after Iowa is settled. Romney still has a big lead in NH and in many other places. Ron winning Iowa won't instantly change everything. The media won't be on his side.

Hard battles in every state from here on.

[FordGTGuy]

One thing to keep in mind is that this will be a battle all the way to the end. If Paul wins Iowa, it will be rendered meaningless in the media. If he takes 2nd, he doesn't exist. NH will be another battle. The attacks will come on fast and furious in the coming weeks. RP has to do everything he can to win states. It's not just going to magically work out, if attack ads work well then he needs to keep doing them. Yes, go after Romney after Iowa is settled. Romney still has a big lead in NH and in many other places. Ron winning Iowa won't instantly change everything. The media won't be on his side.

Hard battles in every state from here on.

Exactly!

[braane]

One thing to keep in mind is that this will be a battle all the way to the end. If Paul wins Iowa, it will be rendered meaningless in the media. If he takes 2nd, he doesn't exist. NH will be another battle. The attacks will come on fast and furious in the coming weeks. RP has to do everything he can to win states. It's not just going to magically work out, if attack ads work well then he needs to keep doing them. Yes, go after Romney after Iowa is settled. Romney still has a big lead in NH and in many other places. Ron winning Iowa won't instantly change everything. The media won't be on his side.

Hard battles in every state from here on.

Ron didn't get to the top of the polls by going negative, though. Why is it that the mentality is suddenly different now that he is there? A little over 2 weeks until Iowa. That might not even leave time to go negative effectively. It's time to inspire people to vote for him, not make them think twice about someone else (because that doesn't guarantee they will vote for you).

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Ron didn't get to the top of the polls by going negative, though. Why is it that the mentality is suddenly different now that he is there? A little over 2 weeks until Iowa. That might not even leave time to go negative effectively. It's time to inspire people to vote for him, not make them think twice about someone else (because that doesn't guarantee they will vote for you).

I could be wrong but didn't Paul's numbers and media attention rise when the "Serial Hypocrisy" ad was launched?

[braane]

I could be wrong but didn't Paul's numbers and media attention rise when the "Serial Hypocrisy" ad was launched?
What would lead you to believe that there was a correlation? Do you think calling a man a hypocrite makes his supporters want to abandon ship and run to the attacker? I don't think it does, it would make me resent the attackers.

Besides... NBC/Marist had a poll out that was taken between 11/27-11/29 that had Ron at 17%. Serial Hypocrisy came out on 11/30. Des Moines Register poll taken from 11/27 to 11/30 had Ron at 18%(only 1 poll has been higher since). ISU Gazette had Ron at 20% back on 11/13.

The polls don't show any improvement since Serial Hypocrisy. At the most it gave us some much needed media attention. Now the media is covering Ron, so we don't need that spark.

[InTradePro]

I'm not buying it.

I see some Huntsman pumping going on, but honestly... he would really struggle with conservatives. He has the same problems as Romney, and he is seen as the unelectable of the two. If the base wanted to drown Romney's chances (which they need their inevitable candidate to stay, so they wouldn't) they would push Huntsman. Since Romney would keep his base support it would just dilute the vote further. Probably giving New Hampshire to Ron. It would backfire, they have to know this.

Read Jon Huntsman: Push Coming after Iowa? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339146-Jon-Huntsman-Push-Coming-after-Iowa)

[braane]

Read Jon Huntsman: Push Coming after Iowa? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339146-Jon-Huntsman-Push-Coming-after-Iowa)

I read it. I disagreed. I think that it would be political suicide. There isn't a very big base for Romney types in the GOP. You can't have two candidates pulling from it and expect them to win. They can try to sell Huntsman as whatever they want, but he won't catch with conservatives and would really hurt Romney. I mean, it would be great for us if they pushed Huntsman. They don't want what's good for us.

[InTradePro]

I read it. I disagreed. I think that it would be political suicide. There isn't a very big base for Romney types in the GOP. You can't have two candidates pulling from it and expect them to win. They can try to sell Huntsman as whatever they want, but he won't catch with conservatives and would really hurt Romney. I mean, it would be great for us if they pushed Huntsman. They don't want what's good for us.

If there was concern about having two none conservatives it wouldn't of become an Iowa timed lineup of Romney vs Gingrich.

[braane]

If there was concern about having two none conservatives it wouldn't of become an Iowa timed lineup of Romney vs Gingrich.
People actually believe Gingrich is a conservative, is the difference. Huntsman isn't considered a conservative. Not that Ron is considered a conservative by neocons, but he still gets the true conservative vote. Plus, who is to say that Gingrich is going to be non-existent in New Hampshire? Last I checked he still polls over 20% there.

The numbers aren't there for Huntsman... example (not really realistic, but bare with me). Let's assume that Santorum and Bachmann drops out after Iowa.

Romney: 30%
Paul: 25%
Huntsman: 20%
Gingrich: 20%
Perry: 2%
Other:3%

Rearrange them how you want. If Gingrich falls any further, to like 10%, let's say... there isn't any guarantee where those numbers go. They could go to Perry, they could go to Ron, they can go equally divided among everyone. They have to get behind either Romney or Huntsman, I don't think they can run with both.

[rich34]

We need a serial hypocrisy ad for Mitt at least waiting in the wings for NH. It wouldn't hurt to run an ad like that about 4 days before the caucus, actually that would work brilliantly!

[InTradePro]

People actually believe Gingrich is a conservative, is the difference. Huntsman isn't considered a conservative. Not that Ron is considered a conservative by neocons, but he still gets the true conservative vote. Plus, who is to say that Gingrich is going to be non-existent in New Hampshire? Last I checked he still polls over 20% there.

The numbers aren't there for Huntsman... example (not really realistic, but bare with me). Let's assume that Santorum and Bachmann drops out after Iowa.

Romney: 30%
Paul: 25%
Huntsman: 20%
Gingrich: 20%
Perry: 2%
Other:3%

Rearrange them how you want. If Gingrich falls any further, to like 10%, let's say... there isn't any guarantee where those numbers go. They could go to Perry, they could go to Ron, they can go equally divided among everyone. They have to get behind either Romney or Huntsman, I don't think they can run with both.

The numbers for Huntsman will come from the the current Gingrich voters, those that where pumped by Fox and friends and can be again.
Gingrich would drop out after Iowa and endorse Huntsman.

[milo10]

How about this: an extremely well-done viral internet piece taking down Romney that has no mention of or connection to Ron Paul? We can spread it everywhere, as can Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, etc. supporters.

Our goal is not tie Ron to more negative campaigning, it is to beat down Romney.